To be fair, to me it would seem that to be consistent either "one_for_all"
should be "all_for_one," or "rest_for_one" should be "one_for_rest." But
these have been this way for probably more than 20 years, so I doubt
they'll change any time soon. :)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:54:16 PM UTC-4, Rich Morin wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 2016, at 20:19, ruby...@foxmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
> > Why the name of that strategy is `:one_for_all`, not `:all_for_one`?
>
> They just picked the first clause of the slogan?
>
> Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno
> ("One for all, all for one")
>
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unus_pro_omnibus,_omnes_pro_uno
>
> -r
>
> --
> http://www.cfcl.com/rdm Rich Morin r...@cfcl.com
> <javascript:>
> http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume San Bruno, CA, USA +1 650-873-7841
>
> Software system design, development, and documentation
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"elixir-lang-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to elixir-lang-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-talk/317d00bd-5731-486a-b494-095a1b99a720%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
